Court of Appeals imposes two-year ban on Danville lawyer

A Danville lawyer who was a no show for oral arguments in two appeals before the Court of Appeals of Virginia has been publicly held in contempt and banned from practicing before that court for two years.

The court today issued a published order imposing sanctions on attorney Jon I. Davey.

According to the order, Davey failed to appear for arguments in Salem in two criminal appeals. Called before the court to explain, Davey admitted he never put the oral argument dates on his calendar. The court took note of three prior disciplinary actions against Davey, the most recent of which called for him to set up a working docket control system for his practice.

The court ordered Davey to pay $250 for each of the two arguments he missed. After his two-year banishment, he can apply for reinstatement. The court made it clear, however, that Davey will have to satisfy the court as to his diligence before again being allowed to practice in the court.

Davey no doubt will face additional disciplinary consideration from bar regulators. The Court of Appeals order directs that a copy be provided to the VSB.

2 comments

The order says Davey was anticipating making his arguments by teleconference, but does not explain whether he had requested teleconferences. If he did, then I think it was the COA’s fault that it set the cases for personal appearance. While that does not excuse his not reading the letter from the Court advising him that the cases were set for personal appearance (the letter sent when a case is set for teleconference is quite different), if he in fact requested teleconferences (and, I concede that he may not have done so) and was unfamiliar with the process, I can see how he might have made the error. The COA is getting very heavy handed in imposing sanctions and public castigation of counsel in its opinions. I think they are getting grumpy because the Supreme Court is reversing so many of their cases.

The order says Davey was anticipating making his arguments by teleconference, but does not explain whether he had requested teleconferences. If he did, then I think it was the COA’s fault that it set the cases for personal appearance. While that does not excuse his not reading the letter from the Court advising him that the cases were set for personal appearance (the letter sent when a case is set for teleconference is quite different), if he in fact requested teleconferences (and, I concede that he may not have done so) and was unfamiliar with the process, I can see how he might have made the error. The COA is getting very heavy handed in imposing sanctions and public castigation of counsel in its opinions. I think they are getting grumpy because the Supreme Court is reversing so many of their cases.